Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2010 November 2



File:Emtricitabine.png

 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 01:01, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
 * File:Emtricitabine.png ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]) – uploaded by Mykhal ( [ notify] | contribs | uploads).


 * Orphaned low-res image; replaced in Emtricitabine. Leyo 09:24, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this section.

File:Sonja Henie art.jpg

 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by AnomieBOT ⚡  01:01, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
 * File:Sonja Henie art.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]) – uploaded by Tillman ( [ notify] | contribs | uploads).


 * Not clear why this non-free image is needed. J Milburn (talk) 13:00, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - stated purpose is to "illustrate" which is explicitly disallowed. (ESkog)(Talk) 15:38, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Not sure where you got that. Henie's art collection is discussed at her Wikibio, which also notes that her art collection "formed the basis for the Henie-Onstad Art Centre ..." I improved the boilerplate purpose statement --Pete Tillman (talk) 12:34, 4 November 2010 (UTC)


 * RETAIN: Henie art collection is discussed at some length in her Wikibio, adjacent to the photo in question.  Assuming we keep the photo, it should also be added to  Henie-Onstad Art Centre. --Pete Tillman (talk) 20:08, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, I'm sure her collection is of significance- discuss it in the article, by all means, but that doesn't mean we need to use a non-free image to illustrate it. J Milburn (talk) 12:41, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this section.

File:MarlinStadium10272010.jpg

 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by AnomieBOT ⚡  01:01, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
 * File:MarlinStadium10272010.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]) – uploaded by Fredler Brave ( [ notify] | contribs | uploads).


 * Image is claimed to be unreplaceable because "there is no other way to get an image of what it will finally look like." This isn't such an image, though; it's just an aerial photograph of the construction site. I think it's probably replaceable by anyone walking by and taking a photograph of the construction. (ESkog)(Talk) 15:37, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
 * No because the progress of construction would have changed since then therefore it would be a totally different image. (Fredler Brave)(Talk) 15:39, 2 November 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.94.226.208 (talk)
 * But then a more recent picture would give an even better idea of what the stadium will look like. Yay! Delete as its stated purpose can be replaced by a free image, per WP:NFCC, and it lacks contextual significance, WP:NFCC. --Mosmof (talk) 17:15, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Edited to add a better explanation of why this image fails WP:NFCC#1 and 8 - "To show what ____ looks like" is an insufficient reason to use a non-free image. There has to be some compelling reason why the stadium's appearance on the very that the photograph is significant, and that has to be supported by text sourced to a reliable, third party source. I don't see anything close to contextual significance for this image in this article. And as far as replaceability, the question isn't whether you can get the same image. Rather, whether you can serve the same purpose with a free image, and I don't see why you couldn't. Mosmof (talk) 17:38, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep, the image doesn't look replaceable and looks home made. –BuickCenturyDriver 13:10, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure I understand. It's a huge ass construction site in public view, and the photograph belongs to a company called Aerial Photography, Inc, so it fails both WP:NFCC and #2. Mosmof (talk) 13:25, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this section.

File:Manny Pacquiao Time Asia Magazine Cover.jpg

 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by AnomieBOT ⚡  01:01, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
 * File:Manny Pacquiao Time Asia Magazine Cover.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]) – uploaded by Luisztdt ( [ notify] | contribs | uploads).


 * WP:NFCC - There's no discussion of the cover itself, and we do not need the image to understand he was featured in a Time article. The first item in the rationale claims, The TIME publication was an important step in public awareness about the product and led to the resolution of numerous IP infringements, which confuses me greatly and not mentioned in the article body at all. Mosmof (talk) 15:58, 2 November 2010 (UTC) Mosmof (talk) 15:58, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this section.